DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 2019/0227406 A1).
As to claim 1, Wang et al. discloses an optical module (Figs.99-101: optical system 8-1), comprising:
a first movable part (Figs.100 and 101; [0637]: guiding element 8-440), configured to connect to a first optical assembly (Fig.108: the bladed structure 8-430 corresponds to the claim first optical assembly. [0634]: columns 8-432B of aperture elements 8-432 are disposed in guiding recesses 8-444);
a fixed part (Figs.99-100; [0615]: top case 8-100 and bottom 8-200), wherein the first movable part is movable relative to the fixed part ([0615] and [0637]: guiding element 8-440 rotates in the optical system relative to the fixed case 8-100/bottom 8-200); and
a first driving assembly (Figs.107 and 109: third driving assembly 8-460, including magnetic element 8-462, coils 8-464, resilient elements 8-466 and transmitting portion 8-468), configured to drive the first movable part to move ([0637]: movement of transmitting portion 8-468, engaged with connecting hole 8-446, rotates guiding element 8-440).
As to claim 2, Wang et al. discloses the optical module as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a second movable part, movable relative to the fixed part (Fig.100: holder 8-300 and aperture unit 8-400 form the claimed second movable part; [0621] and [0623]: holder 8-300 carries lens unit 8-340 and aperture unit 8-400 and moves relative to top case 8-100), wherein the second movable part comprises:
a first bottom (Fig.100: base 8-420 corresponds to the claimed first bottom), connected to the first movable part ([0625]: base 8-420 supports the aperture stack containing guiding element 8-440 between cover 8-410 and bottom plate 8-450); and
a carrier (Fig.100: holder 8-300), connected to a second optical assembly (Fig.100: lens unit 8-340), wherein the second optical assembly is connected to the first bottom ([0619]: lens unit 8-340 is fixed in holder through-hole 8-302).
As to claim 3, Wang et al. discloses the optical module as claimed in claim 2, wherein:
the first movable part is rotatable around a main rotational axis (Fig.113; [0637]: guiding element 8-440 rotates in direction 8 R1 about the central optical axis 8-O, which corresponds to the claimed main rotational axis); and
the fixed part comprises a housing (Figs.99-100: top case 8-100), wherein the carrier and the second optical assembly are disposed within the housing ([0621]: holder 8-300 and lens unit 8-340 are movably disposed in top case 8-100).
As to claim 5, Wang et al. discloses the optical module as claimed in claim 3, wherein the first optical assembly comprises:
a first blade, having a blade surface (Figs.104-105; [0628]: one aperture element 8-432 includes plate 8-432A; the surface of plate 8-432A corresponds to the claimed blade surface); and
a second blade, wherein when viewed along the main rotational axis, the first and second blades are disposed on opposite sides of the main rotational axis (Fig. 104; [0628]: aperture elements 8-432 surround axis 8-O in a rotationally symmetric array. Two diametrically opposed blades correspond to the claimed first and second blades).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2019/0227406 A1) in view of Kamo (US 2016/0209725 A1).
As to claim 6, Wang et al. discloses the optical module as claimed in claim 5 but fails to disclose the second blade has a different shape than the first blade.
However, Kamo teaches the second blade has a different shape than the first blade (Figs.2-4; [0033-0034]: first top blades 5 have larger plate areas than second stop blades 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang et al. with the teaching of Kamo such that the second blade has a different shape than the first blade, so as to reduce the sliding contact areas between the stop blades, thereby enabling a reduction of frictional resistance ([0040]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2019/0227406 A1) in view of Lee (US 2022/0382128 A1).
As to claim 7, Wang et al. discloses the optical module as claimed in claim 5 but fails to disclose the first movable part comprises:
an upper surface, facing the first blade; and
a plurality of guiding protrusions, formed on the upper surface, connected to the first blade and the second blade respectively.
However, Lee teaches an upper surface, facing the first blade (Figs.1 and 5; [0042]: the upper surface of the rotating carrier base 12 corresponds to the claimed upper surface); and a plurality of guiding protrusions (Fig.5: sliding shafts 121), formed on the upper surface, connected to the first blade and the second blade respectively ([0042]: “each blade 15 slidably cooperates with a sliding shaft 121 disposed on the carrier base 12 by using a sliding slot 152 disposed on the blade 15”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang et al. with the teaching of Lee to have an upper surface, facing the first blade; and a plurality of guiding protrusions, formed on the upper surface, connected to the first blade and the second blade respectively, so as to reduce the height occupied by the blades, thereby reducing the height of the entire structure and facilitating miniaturization of the aperture ([0043]).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2019/0227406 A1) in view of Kamo (US 2016/0209725 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Takaya et al. (JP2015049430A, English translation attached).
As to claim 8, Wang et al. in view of Kamo discloses the optical module as claimed in claim 6. The above combination fails to disclose when in a first state, an angle between the blade surface and the upper surface is a first angle; when in a second state, the angle is a second angle.
However, Takaya et al. teaches when in a first state, an angle between the blade surface and the upper surface is a first angle (Fig.8B; [0030]: when optical path opening 12 is fully open, the wing member 15 is approximately parallel to the plane 17a of the drive ring 17); when in a second state, the angle is a second angle (Fig.8A; [0029-0030]: as the optical aperture narrows, projection 26 supports blade 15 in a posture included by angle α relative to ring plane 17a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Wang et al. and Kamo with the teaching of Takaya et al. such that when in a first state, an angle between the blade surface and the upper surface is a first angle; when in a second state, the angle is a second angle, so as to provide stable contact with the ring during adjustment and stable horizontal storage when the aperture is open ([0033]).
As to claim 9, Wang et al. in view of Kamo and Takaya et al. discloses the optical module as claimed in claim 8, wherein the first angle is different from the second angle (Takaya et al.: Figs. 8A and 8B; [0030]: when in open state, the angle is 0 (parallel); when in closed state, the angle is α).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2019/0227406 A1) in view of Xu et al. (CN115407578A, English translation attached).
As to claim 14, Wang et al. discloses the optical module as claimed in claim 2 but fails to disclose the first driving assembly comprises:
a first magnetic element, disposed on the first movable part;
a coil, disposed on the carrier.
However, Xu et al. teaches the first driving assembly comprises: a first magnetic element, disposed on the first movable part (Fig.1, 2, and 5; [0059]: the second magnet 172 is fixed to the cylindrical body 120); a coil, disposed on the carrier ([0059]: coil 171 is fixed to first cylindrical body 110. [0052]: the bottom surface of the first cylindrical body 110 is mounted to the lens carrier).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang et al. with the teaching of Xu et al. to have a first magnetic element, disposed on the first movable part; a coil, disposed on the carrier, so as to assemble the aperture actuator as a module and install on the moving lens carrier, thereby reducing assembly difficulty and facilitating production ([0052]).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2019/0227406 A1) in view of Kazuya et al. (WO 2022/126570 A1).
As to claim 17, Wang et al. discloses the optical module as claimed in claim 3, wherein the fixed part comprises:
a housing, having an opening (Fig.100; [0617]: top case 8-100 has top case opening 8-110);
a second bottom (Fig.100; [0615]: bottom 8-200 is part of the fixed portion and corresponds to the claimed second bottom).
Wang et al. fails to disclose a first circuit element, electrically connecting the carrier to the first driving assembly; and a second circuit element, connecting the carrier to the second bottom.
However, Kazuya et al. teaches a first circuit element, electrically connecting the carrier to the first driving assembly (Fig.3A; [0077]: first metal member 114 is at least partly inserted into holder 108 and connect to an aperture power terminal); and a second circuit element, connecting the carrier to the second bottom ([0078-0079]: the distinct spring/base-side conductive path comprises top spring 106 and second metal member 116 in or on based 122, and links the holder-side circuit to the base).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang et al. with the teaching of Kazuya et al. to have a first circuit element, electrically connecting the carrier to the first driving assembly; and a second circuit element, connecting the carrier to the second bottom, so as to accommodate focus movement and reduce the need for a separate moving flexible circuit.
As to claim 18, Wang et al. in view of Kazuya et al. discloses the optical module as claimed in claim 17, wherein the housing and the second bottom are fixedly joined to enclose the first circuit element, the second circuit element, the carrier, and the second driving assembly (Wang et al.: [0615-0617]: top case 8-100 and bottom 8-200 form the fixed case around holder 8-300, autofocus drive 8-310 and the internal resilient/electrical components. In the combination of Wang et al. and Kazuya et al., the holder-side member 114 and spring/base-side path 106/116 of Kazuya et al. would be routed inside that case, thereby enclosing both circuit elements along with the holder and autofocus drive).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2019/0227406 A1) in view of Hirohata (US 4,466,725).
As to claim 19, Wang et al. discloses the optical module as claimed in claim 2 but fails to disclose the second optical assembly includes a recess, in proximity with the first driving assembly.
However, Hirohata teaches the second optical assembly includes a recess, in proximity with the first driving assembly (Figs.2 and 3; col.2, lines 61-68: movable lens barrel 1 carries lenses L1-L4 and includes inner-wall recess 1c containing magnets 2a and 2b. Col.3, lines 11-16: those magnets operate shutter/diaphragm blades 6a and 6b.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang et al. with the teaching of Hirohata such that the second optical assembly includes a recess, in proximity with the first driving assembly, so as to make room for the aperture actuator instead of requiring extra room outside of the barrel’s wall, thereby making the optical system more compact.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 10-13, 15-16 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENZHEN WU whose telephone number is (571)272-2519. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SINH TRAN can be reached at (571)272-7564. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZHENZHEN WU/Examiner, Art Unit 2637
/SINH TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2637
